tv Charlie Rose WHUT December 24, 2009 9:00am-10:00am EST
>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. we begin this evening with ken auletta. his book is called "googled: the end of the world as we know it," we'll talk about the future of the digital revolution and who pays for content. >> what's common today and scary today, the big change today is to see the change. and that speed of change terrifies people. and it terrifies not just traditional media people but new media people. who's that person in the garage inventing that new technology? do i sacrifice my existing television business and put it online at a cheaper rate? again, dimes for dollars or pennies for dollars. and... but if i don't, am i missing the train? >> rose: we conclude this evening with the two golf instructors, andy plumber and michael bennett who are behind the controversial swing called stack and tilt. >> it drove me out of competitive golf.
>> rose: how's this? >> well, to begin with, not understanding how the ball curves, why the ball goes where it goes. it can lead you down some roads that you start ming adjustments in your swing that aren't necessary that even make the problem worse when you don't understand the rules of the ball and how it flies. >> i would go farther than that, too, mike. i would even they every good player that has lost their game, it's a fundamental understanding... misunderstanding of that basic principle. and what i'm talking about... i don't want to be... i want to be clear. when a golfer hits the ball, the initial direction that the ball takes off on is controlled by the angle of the club face, charlie. and that's been written in books for years and years and years that the path of the club dictates the direction of the ball as backwards. >> rose: the digital revolution and the revolution of a golf swing next.
if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ken auletta is here. for 18 years, he's written for
the "new yorker" magazine. he has several books on media, including "three blind mice, how the t.v. networks lost their way." his latest examine it is transformative power of google. it is called "googled: the end of the world as we know it." our conversation last month focused mainly on the company and its founders. today we take a closer look at google's impact on all kinds of media including print, broadcasting, advertising and so many other things. i am pleased to have ken auletta back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: tell me how google is positioned for the future and what are the both internal and external threats to them? >> short question, huh? >> rose: (laughs) >> how much time do we have, charlie? >> well, i thought i'd just sit back and... you know. >> the betting... eric t c.e.o. said to me-- and i quote him in the book-- assaying that we hope to be the first $100 billion media company. he didn't say search company, he said media company. in order to do that, search,
which still grows, but its growth rate has slowed, they are tting on three other possible economic engines. one is youtube, which this year will lose money. but its losses are shrinking. so if they can transform youtube into a money maker, and we'll talk later about how they might do that, that's one engine of growth. a second engine of growth is android, their operating system for cell phones, smart phones. they're betting they will take off and they've done fairly well so far but it still makes no money. if it does start making money, that's another engine of growth. and the third eng they're betting on is cloud computing. which is instead of buying packaged software from microsoft or instead of having an i.t. department and doing it yourself in the company, outsource to us or have a cloud which is like your blackberry, it's following you everywhere, don't buy packaged software, we'll provide you with the software. >> rose: what so what are the implicit threats to all this? >> well, the threats to them, a, people may not like cloud computing, companies may not want to give up control.
if i don't packaged software, i don't control it on my computer and if gmail goes down or one of the google apps goes down, as has happened, i can't use my computer. on the other hand, if my computer crashes i can't use it, either. so that's the tradeoff. we don't know what consumeers will choose with android, will phone companies let them in and how will that monetize it? it's very difficult to do an ad on a cell phone. excuse me, we interrupt your cell phone call to bring you this ad. i don't think so. then with youtube, the problem that youtube has had is that advertisers want their friendly ads in a friendly environment. user-generated content is not a predictable and often friendly environment. so they want more professional content. what google is moving towards with youtube-- and this provides some hope that they'll generate some income-- is they're basically moving away from the engineer's motion that we can sell advertising on anything, which was a stupid notion because you can't. and they're moving towards with more professional content and i think you're going see youtube
moving away from just the advertising model and begin to charge people. >> rose: oh, my god. you're saying google no longer believes that the advertising model is the only thing will rule the future? >> i am, indeed, saying that. i'll tell you, charlie, i had a fascinating journey as i went through and reported this book and tried to look at where the future is going. i interviewed people like mark an drese on who created netscape people like john hennessey who was a partner at stanford and they both said to me something that i would hear more. we made a mistake in the early days of the internet by making everything free and we have to begin to figure out a micropayment or subscription or some other model. so you hear that. mark an dreseen said to me "i'm inches away from getting people's credit cards" for his social networking. so i asked eric schmidt last december "do you think see from still the right model?" he said "i do."
i said "your board member doesn't think it's the right model." he said "i disagree respectfully." my last interview, last april... >> rose: so december to april. >> i said "do you agree?" he said "i was wrong, i changed my mind." i think the recession was a punch in the nose to the valley because they realizing that advertising is a slender reed to lean on and they have to find another source of revenue. they're in the same predicament, in the way, that traditional media is in. traditional media is saying we want to figure out way to charge for our content. the new media, the internet, is moving to the sameenter and saying "we have to figure out some way to charge." >> rose: rupert murdoch is on the cutting edge trying to figure that out. where does that stand and is he likely to figure out a model that works? >> murdoch, as he often has done in his business career, is willing to throw down the gauntlet and take a real risk. and what he's doing here and all these meek newspaper guys are pushing him forward, "we love
you what you're doing" but they didn't do it themselves. and he's saying "i'm tired of people commoditizeing the information in my newspapers." >> rose: taking my material and selling it. wrapping advertising around it. >> right. and i don't make enough money that way and i want to make more. so what i'm thinking of doing mr. google is taking the "wall street journal" and my other newspapers off of google's search so you can't get it... which is easy to do. you can opt out of google search very easily. google allows you do that. i'll sell it to microsoft. they want to gain market share, they have only a 10% market share with bing. >> rose: market share of a search engine. >> for search engines. google dominates that world. in order siphon consumers away from google, would microsoft will b willing to pay murdoch and other newspapers lining up behind him? we don't know whether they would. i think it's a first opening snot a negotiation that murdoch is starting. >> rose: why wouldn't microsoft want to do that? >> because they want to gain market sflar google. they've already offered other
incentives for people to do business with bing with microsoft search engine which is has not worked. they've developed a better search engine and gained 1% xx% market share but it's not enough. so in order to make a real forward touchdown pass, they have to try... if they can get top newspapers like that times and the "wall street journal" and the "washington post" off of the google search, that makes the google search less attractive. will google then come in and say we'll offer you something." that's what murdoch is trying to do. >> rose: so you're thinking he's doing bargaining position play. >> i do. >> rose: google will come back and say "don't leave, we'll do this." >> i know google won't do it for st. louis post dispatch and they probably don't want to do it for a lot of newspapers. but the "wall street journal" is not just another newspaper, nor is the "new york times." murdoch is crystalizing, i think the fact that traditional media has to figure out another revenue source and how to avoid
becoming treated like a commodity. google comes back or search engines come back and say "we are expanding your audience, many more people go on line and read you. and if you shut yourself off from search, you'll lose some audience." they come back and say "i'm not monetizing the audience i'm getting." >> rose: and is it an economic dimension that, in fact if they can work something out, "wall street journal," and reduce dramatically their printing costs they'll lose their narrowing and expense item that's troublesome for them? >> newspapers would love to get rid of printing presses and trucks for distribution and... >> rose: because it's a huge percentage of their expense budget? >> 60% or-to-70% of their expense budget. it's huge. >> rose: so they want to go digital if they can figure out a way to make it profitable. >> they can't go totally digital because people want that newspaper and will read that newspaper and you can't just disenfranchise them. >> rose: i bet they would if the
economics circumstances looked that way. >> if they could make money out of it. the problem is you sell an... the same ad on line gets 10% for what the ad on the newspaper gets. and people spend much less time being online with that newspaper and that's why the math doesn't work right now. >> rose: speaking of google again, this book is about google. apple and google rivalry heats up. so what's the xe snigs is that only about, what? >> it's about everything. they compete in phones. they compete with phones. google comes in and comes up with the operating system which goes right at iphone. google now is going to...... >> rose: their android is... that's the operating system for cell phones with motorola. but they have it with verizon versus the iphones deal with at&t. that headline is also about what they're doing in the music business.
they bought a music company so they want to do online music and they made a deal with universe toole do that, vie vo, it's lled and that competes with itunes, which is on. and when google talks about cloud computing, they're competing with apple in that. and the thing that's interesting... among the things that are interesting and i write about this in my book. at the time eric this mid-was on the board of apple. he was compelled in august to step down. >> rose: compelled by steve jobs? >> well, the government was investigating collusion which is kind of silly, i don't think it's collusion but a conflict. the two companies are increasingly competing even though if you ask the founders of google who their business hero is, it's steve jobs. but this is business. or, as the good father says. >> rose: is john hennessey on the board of both or just one? just google? >> yes. but there are three people who are on the board... who are close to both and advisors. bill campbell who was the lead director of apple is on the board and is maybe steve jobs'
closest associate is one of google's closest associates. he comes in and spends a couple of days a week. he's called a coach. >> rose: what does he do? i never understood. >> he advises... he is... eric this mid-calls him his con singh larry. he advises the founders and the management of google about how to act in a grown-up way. >> rose: how to act in a grown-up way? >> how to act in a grown-up way. if they have a problem with the manager they often will send bill cam fwol talk to the manager. he is a former columbia university football coach, the chairman of the board of columbia university today. he's the chairman of the board of intuit, he donates his time to do this. he loves being a coach and basically coaching managers. that's what he does. then al gore is an advisor to google and on the board of apple and art levin son... >> rose: and made a ton of money th google stock, didn't he? >> he sure did. art levin son just stepped down
from the board of google to stay on apple. >> rose: they're going to eliminate all the people who have duel alliances? >> bill campbell is still working with both and al gore is still working with both. >> rose: who would be more nervous about that? apple or google? >> i think there's just growing friction between them. they're seeing that they're just bumping up against each other. and that creates paranoia, as your friend andy grove, is his favorite word. >> rose: where is microsoft in all of this? >> paranoid. >> rose: (laughs) big time paranoid? >> big time. i visited microsoft on my book tour and the same week i visited google in mountain view and it was really interesting to go back to microsoft. i had wrien a book about them ten years ago and cover them and they had a swagger then and were kind of imperious and feeling their... >> rose: and squelching all competition. >> and they were really... well, they were tried in a federal court for doing that and found guilty. >> rose: your friend mark? >> you bet. but what happened was what i
noticed was the humility at microsoft. they were asking questions. but they were asking questions about google. tell us about google, ken. >> rose: what would they want to know? >> what was your impression of them? do they really this or that? and i think it was really the sense that google is the new game in town. and has kind of passed them by. >> rose: well bill gates has said frequent they google reminds him of a young microsoft. >> that's right. >> rose: more than any other company ever. >> that's right. but when you go to google you saw the swagger, i saw the swagger that i would see years ago. >> rose: that a problem of them? >> that's always the danger for a powerful, successful company, hubris. that you get full of yourself, close yourself off as microsoft did and miss the signs. and it's exacerbated by the fact you're dealing with engineers. engineers like to measure things. you can't measure... >> rose: (laughs) yes, they do. >> you can't measure fears... >> rose: that's why ty're
engineers. you can't measure fears, so they can't quantity ties it. >> therefore they don't see it or hear it. >> rose: really. they don't see it or hear it? >> as acutely as they should which was why microsoft was late to understand the government was coming after them. >> rose: or late to understand search? >> totally late to understand search. but google is arguably... has been late to understand the government's not just the u.s. government, the governments around the world have questions about three areas: one, their size or so called monopoly potential, to two is privacy and three is customers. >> rose: microsoft has developed bing, right? >> right. >> it's pretty good. reviews are pretty good. >> it is. >> rose: but google has 60% of the market. >> 65 in the u.s., 70 in the world. >> rose: does microsoft have a chance with a relationship with yahoo! or somewhere else to be a significant competitor in search in >> well, when they combine with yahoo!, they'll get up to close to 20%. >> rose: doubling what they have now. >> yeah. and microsoft has very deep pockets and is... you know, you only have to know bill gates
a-to-see he's a competitor. >> rose: and they didn't go up on search even though they had failure after failure. >> they're coming at them. whether they'll succeed, they don't lack for drive. >> rose: does sergei and larry lack for drive? >> no. >> rose: (laughs) >> no, you're dealing with world-class... >> rose: jobs/gates. >> don't forget jeff bezos. >> rose: bezos. larry, paige, who's the smartest? >> oh, they're smart in different ways. >> rose: jeff bezos, what does he have? >> he has a strategic sense. he thinks over the horizon and he thinks. when he says "i don't want to know what people might be doing, i want to know what they are doing now," and this how i want to build my business strategy. >> rose: does he believe he's wal-mart? >> he's acting like he does. >> rose: he certainly does. >> he's going right at them. >> and they're going at him, too
though. >> look how much advance he is in online sales versus wal-mart. he's doing very well. he's a really smart guy. >> rose: what's amazing about shim i know serious people who counted him out at the first implosion. >> right. >> rose: don't you? >> oh, very serious people. >> rose: stock went down to nothing. >> and still do. he said on your snow last february, he said, you know, i... you asked him what's his great talent and he said "i think i have a talent for thinking ahead and sticking to a long-range plan and being able to withstand the criticism from those who think i'm lost. but bill gates has a different kind of intelligence. gates is a genius and he also is very well educated. >> rose: self-taught. self-taught. >> he reads. >> rose: dropped out of the college, for god's sakes. >> he reads a lot. it's interesting. just look at how he approached his charity, his philanthropic
efforts. he's done it with such intelligence you have to be impressed by that. i think problem bill gates had was that he was a cold businessman and he biasally had a killer instinct. he wanted to kill netscape. not injure them, he wanted to kill them, put them out of business. and that's why he was found guilty. and the other guys are not... >> rose: well... >> i don't think they're killers. i don't think they sit there and take joy in eradicating another company the way bill gates and... >> rose: oh, you think he enjoyed it rather than did it as a necessity because he wants to create a... >> rose: i think he thought it was a necessity but i think he was enjoying it. >> rose: how do you know that? that's an interesting idea. >> having written a book about it. and having sat in a courtroom and listened to the testimony. and... >> rose: that he enjoyed it rather than did it as a... simply business strategy? >> yes, i think microsoft took
some joy in crippling netscape. >> rose: what's the talk of a new web or whatever may be a sort of new generation engine. >> well, the worry that google has is that people will get so caught up and devoted to facebook and twitter, social networks like those that that will become their internet. it will be the way a.o.l. was at one point in time or yahoo! was at one point in time for a lot of people and they'll get everything they want from there and their internet won't be the ocean it will be the this island where all their friends are. >> rose: what is the evidence that that might very well happen >> well, facebook has 300 million users in just five years. that's extraordinary. and what google worries about, if you tnk about a google search, as miraculous as search is, anding into has a wonderful search engine, it's what a
pretty inefficient search engine and if you ask privately this question... not even privately, if you ask the google guys they'll admit it's inefficient. if i do a search and you get back 10,000 answers, it's a blizzard of information. but if i want to buy a camera and i tweet or post something from my friends on facebook or twitter and get back 15 or 20 answers from people i know, i would buy this camera and here's why... >> rose: and nine out of ten say, that you've got a... >> i've got a really effective search. >> rose: and seven of them have owned that camera. >> you bet. it's called vertical search which means fewer answers from experts, stock? you can imagine another form of experts and there are sites that do that in vertical search. the reason that a... a major reason google tried to buy twitter last spring was exactly this. they're worried about social networking search. >> rose: how hard did they try? >> they tried hard. >> rose: in other words, they... twitter did not want to sell? not for sale. so it wasn't a question of how many dollars they could put on the table? >> that is correct.
>> rose: so what sells out there that people at google are excited about? and are they on the cutting edge of exciting stuff rohr there two more kids in a dormitory room at stanford that arebout ready to come up with something that's going to blaze new trails? >> well, we don't know that. that's the great thing. i mean, i think i may have told the story when i was on your show, i tell in the my book that bill gates in '98 when i asked him what he worried about, he didn't say the obvious, which is "economymy competitors, netscape or oracle or apple." he said "i worry about someone in a garage investigating about something that i haven't thought of. that year there were two guys in a garage. sergei and larry. what is that new technology? one thing they are conscious soft social networking and that could pose a problem for search. >> rose: why don't they get social networking? >> well, they have and they haven't done a good job. >> rose: what does that say? >> some people think they don't a good social networking gene.
>> rose: they don't understand it? don't get it. >> they think they don't quite get it. that's an argument. >> rose: how is their culture different, say, than apple's culture? >> apple is the culture of the sun king anditis culture... >> rose: (laughs) that would be mr. jobs? >> there ain't no other. and he's a genius. by the way, he's a bit of a poet too. if you read some of materially interviews he did like in the "playboy" interview he did 20 years ago, his use of language and his breadth of reading, of novels and stuff, is quite extraordinary and his awareness of music. he's a very interesting cat. but he is a guy who is very controlling and no one talks to the press. there's a certain amount of fear there that you don't see on the google campus at all. and it doesn't mean that larry and sergei are not respect bud they're not feared that way. and it kneels more like college
campus than i think... >> rose: and apple feels more like what? >> more like microsoft. >> rose: (laughs) when i ask all these people that you interviewed about who it is they most respect and have the most deep admiration for for achievement it's always steve jobs. >> oh, it's extraordinary. you go back... the graduation speech he made at stanford is the gettysburg address of graduation speeches. >> rose: and all he did was tell three stories. >> that's right. and he's such a private guy and for him to be so personal and talk about his illness and his life and his failures in a graduation speech was unheard of. he's a very secretive guy and much more so than most of these people. >> rose: what has come out of, say, china and as huge a market as that is and china's effort to sensor or restrict google?
>> well, china... google decided like every business in the world we want to be in the biggest consumerarket in the world, china. china then wakes up and says, hey, wait a second, we don't want you tv search eng than can tell people about and show pictures of tianamen square, what really happened there. we would like to see flowers in tianamen square and people dancing and smiling. and google was faced with a choice. do you get out of china or stay and compromise. >> rose: and they showed courage didn't say in >> they didn't, they compromised. >> rose: that's my point. did they later regret it or do they live with their embarrassment. >> i describe a scene at their 2008... >> rose: why do you think i'm talking about that? because this is... >> in their 2008 annual meeting with shareholders it came up. it was pose bade share holder that you get out of china and they voted it down, google management. they chose to stay in china. they are not the dominant search engine in china, a
chinese-controlled search engine is. >> rose: is it as good as google. >> i couldn't... it's certainly censored. it's certainly not as broad as google would be in china. but i don't speak the language so... >> rose: here's the takeaway from this. they all know that free has got to be redefined. >> that is a headline i would affix and i think it's a real important development, charlie, and it's new and i try to write about in the that book. chris anderson, the editor of wooired magazine wrote a book that came out in july called "free." and chris, who i think is intellectually honest affix it had last chapter, he called it a coda chapter and he said "free alone is not the answer." so he negated some of the thing he is said? the previous chapter. and it's the realization that dawned on the internettoo late that because of the recession
you couldn't just rely on advertising. here's the problem. how do you change the culture of the internet. you can say free alone is not the answer and we have to charge now but how do you get people to pay? we don't know the answer to that. >> rose: my guess is they'll pay something. >> they do for itunes, they do for match.com, they do for other things. >> rose: that's my point. >> >> but the view has come to be that information is and should be free. can newspapers and magazines begin change that culture with the help of... >> rose: they look back as music looks back at its mistakes, would they look back and say had we never gone free we would have been a lot better off, why didn't we find a formula even though we're talking about digital dimes and analog dollars? >> charlie, it's not just the formula. why didn't they invest in digital? why didn't they create a more inventive online newspaper and put someone? charge of it who actually understood the online world, that it was a multimedia world, a two-way world unlike a print
newspaper that came out in the morning and, by the way, you can't break stories until they're in the newspaper. they bear a measure of blame... the music companies, publishing companies, television companies, a measure of blame for this situation. >> rose: it's the same reason people in radio didn't go into television and same reason people in the railroad business didn't go go into the airplane business. or not? is it? >> it is. but they didn't understand the transportation business st.. >> rose: love that. >> but what's common today and scary today, the big change today the the speed of change. and this speed of change terrifies people and it terrifies not just traditional media people but new media people. who's that person in the garage inventing that new technology? do i sacrifice my existing television business and put it online at that a cheaper rate. dimes for dollars or pennies for dollars. if i don't, am i missing the train? and that's scary and it should
be. >> rose: this is the very reason that warren buffett says he's never made a significant investment in technology. >> yeah, but a lot of people... >> rose: if a lot of people got very rich. >> if he'd invested in google he would have done very well. >> rose: comcast and g.e. why did g.e. sell? >> g.e., i think, gave up. i think they felt... you know, they're a company that is... >> rose: makes turbine engines. >> they didn't see it... it wasn't the cash flow generator that it had been. always something else to offset... >> rose: was that because it was a business out of fashion or because it had bad management? i'm not talking about g.e., i'm talking about nbc. they sold it because they didn't believe in its future. >> if you're in fourth place for a long period of time you have to blame someone and you can't blame g.e. for that. >> rose: (laughs) my point. >> so they haven't done very well in the entertainment division. they've done very well with the
cable purchases that they made. which was the great allure for come cast. when you ask comcast officials why did you do the nbc/universal deal, the first answer they give you that we wanted those cable networks because that's a growing business. nbc... network is declining in numbers. in both sales and circulation. and the nbc stations is declining in income and circulation. but the cable networks, bravo and u.s.a. are growing. and cnbc. that was attraction. the other attraction, they want to compete against espn and nbc sports tied up with their regional sports networks of comcast gives them a shot, they hope, at competing with the espn so the network was not the attract that it had been. but for g.e. it was the way exit the business, which they wanted to do. >> rose: jack welch liked it more than jeff imsnelt >> he liked it because it was a better business at the time he entered it.
>> rose: he liked it more than that. >> he liked the glamour, i'm sure that's true. i know it's true. >> rose: (laughs) the book is called "googled: the end of the world as we know it." ken o tlaet who covers media better than anybody, especially technology. i'm pleased to have him here for part two of a conversation about this book. thank you again. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: two of the most controversial instructs in all of golf were at the table recently. they are mike bennett and andy plumber, their golf instructors whose techniques which are called the stack and tilt, have turned golf upside down for some. a lot of supreme an opinion about their instruction. they have high profile critics and a legion of supporters. their techniques have been called radical and revolutionary by the likes of "golf digest" which has featured them in several lengthy pieces. they've had several players in tournaments, five who have had never won before. but they've lost two of their highest profile clients, mike weir and aaron batterly. they advocate a swing that does
not move the weight to the back foot on the back swing to create power a long-held tenet in golf. but instead they maintain ow that power comes more from the golfer pushing off the ground like a jumper. they say this weight shift has made golf too difficult a game for the masses to learn and therefore they have reorganized the fundamentals of the game. since one billion people play golf all over the world and are always searching for the perfect swing, we want to know what is the story. is this the future of playing golf or the path to oblivion or just some passing end? mike bennett and andy plumber talk about the critici, about golf in general, and about their book "the stack and tilt swing." >> well, charlie, first, what we're talking about is what if i told you that all the rules that people have been taught to play golf by weren't correct and what if i told you that the basic premise of the game was backwards?
i think that's where some of the controversy starts. so we're talking about changing the whole paradigm with the way the golf swing is taught to people. >> this game that everybody's loved wayack when from ben hogan and jack nicklaus and tiger woods ear saying... >> well, what i'm saying charlie is that there's no about the basic consensus about how the ball flies, the rules that govern the curve of the ball have been miss understood for generations. >> rose: what did they misunderstand? >> they misunderstood that the direction of the swing and the angle of the face and how they interrelate with one another and how they project the ball, there's been a basic misinterpretation. >> rose: so it's not about the pattern of the swing and... >> rose: well, it's ultimately about that, too. but first and foremost, you really can't learn at all how to teach a swing until you have a basic understanding of how the ball flies. >> rose: and what do you know about that? >> well it drove me out of
competitive golf. >> rose: how's this? >> well, to begin with, not understanding how the ball curves, why the ball goes where it goes, it can lead you down some roads that you start making adjustments between n your swing that aren't necessary that even make the problem worse company squaw sent a since walls of... when you don't understand the rules of the ball. >> rose: >> every good player that's lost their game, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of that basic principal. and what i'm talking about, i want to be clear that when your golfer hit the ball the initial direction that the ball takes off on is controlled by the angle of the club face. and that's been written in books for years and years and years that the path of the club dictates the direction of the ball. it's backwards. >> what dictates the direction of the ball? >> the angle of the club face. >> don: so how the club face hits the ball >> where it's pointing. >> rose: the way it's pointing when it hits the ball.
and >> and that's been misrepresented for years. >> and the path of the club to that face ang is going to imfart spin on the ball, if any. >> correct. >> and because of that, eons or ages of golfers have been directed in the opposite direction off the times. >> rose: but this gets to some of the controversy now. there are a lot of golfers out there, including tiger woods and phil mickelson and lots of others who have been winning lots of tournaments because they've been operating under the principles you now say are the wrong principles! >> rose: >> what if i told you, charlie, that tiger woods is the golfer over the past five years who's hit more balls in the right rough than any golfer in professional golf. >> rose: i would say i'd take that if i could have the performance of tiger woods. >> and i would, too, but what if you're trying to teach masss of golfers using tiger woods as a model for how to hit the ball and the moll dell you're using is a model that hitting the ball most to the right?
it doesn't say anything as to how many times he chips the ball or how well he put putts the ball. >> or how far he can hit the ball. there's a lot of other things that go into winning a tournament or shooting low scores, as you know. but with the model for contemporary teaching, if it's tiger woods, would be bias towards hitting to the right. and, frankly, too, charlie, the model for... that golfers have been taught of moving the weight back and support bias towards hitting the... towards slicing the ball which is what makes golfers slice. in other words it's not the age old theorytor age old consensus about all golfers slice, it's true because the way the game has been interpreted. it's not just an inherent fact about golf way the people slice, it's the way the game had been interpreted that makes people slice. >> why do you call it stack and it? >> well, we never called it anything for 15 years and when
the first article was completed, "golf digest" wanted to name the article and have a name for the swing and they gave us a list of maybe 60 names and we didn't like any of them. we were sitting there at lunch looking at the names and he started throwing around a couple words that we use and first it was tilt and stack and then flipped it around and used stack and tilt and it's a little description of part of the swing we teach. >> rose: you've got some illustrations that will show that. well >> well, the way the name was derived, mike said, the stack and tilt part of it was derived by the way the spine works in the swing and one of the distinguishing characteristics that's created a lot of havoc in golf instruction is over the way the spine tilts to the left. and this picture here is just a picture shot of some of golf's greatest players demonstrating how they tilted to the left. >> rose: this is obviously sam
snead. this is obviously jack nicklaus. >> arnold palmer. >> rose: arnold palmer. >> that's johnny miller. >> rose: johnny miller. what does that prove to you? >> it just demonstrates to me... >> rose: they're stacked up over the ball, not shifting their way from forward to rear or if they're right handed from left to right? >> right, which would make the game much more complicated, especially for the inexperienced player. shifting the weight around under the pretense of hitting the ball farther just multiplies the complexity of the game for the average player. >> it also, charlie, starts to illustrate how similar a lot of these swings were when you are looking at the picture in a different line. so people m people say "all those swings are so different. when you look at a lot of pieces, there's a lot of similarities. >> rose: i have asked reporters, golf professionals, players about this. they will say to you that if you look at hogan, if you look at nicklaus, if you look at sneed,
they all will shift their weight when they're bringing the club back. now, do you agree that? >> well... >> there's another way of our criticism. we only use specific pictures, we only use the pictures that help validate the principle that we're teaching bause these players didn't do this or we're not copying any tour player that played the game. >> >> not even ben hogan. >> right. we're only using them as examples to illustrate the principle. >> so i can go back through the archives and find a picture of ben hogan or jack nicklaus doing just about anything to support my case, okay? >> rose: well, jack nicklaus is alive, does he support your case? >> i don't know that he's completely aware of it or frankly cares. >> rose: (laughs) >> but our point is that this is... to us it's important because it's the world we live in. you know, we live in golf and our business is to make golfers better and i believe that the
process that's out there, the standard procedure that's out there is misrepresented. >> rose: let's point to that. tell me what the impressions are that are not either correct or fair. >> well, starting... going back to before that article, that first article came out in 2007. we were helping a number of different players and they all were playing better significantly better. and the commentary on t.v. was very positive. "these guys haven't swung this good in years. this guy swings great." and up until the time the magazine came out, a lot of positive feedback. >> only positive feedback, actually. >> and when the magazine came out we tribed how we were teaching the players and overnight it changed to "well, this will never work, this is the worst thing you could possibly do." >> rose: why do you think they said that? >> because i don't think they understand the swing. >> rose: do you believe that the reason that people have... those who haveaid this doesn't work
or they've tried to define this come from basic disagreements or some other reason? i think... i think it comes from the basic disagreement, but you know, i also think that it comes from... >> it comes from a number of levels. >> rose: they're intimidated by what? >> at some point if more and more people start to understand how these principles work in golf, they're going to ask more questions to the prose and to the experts and i don't know if they know answers to these questions. >> rose: okay... >> and intimidated by a sophisticated description. >> rose: here is the question: touring pros will follow stack and tilt, they'll do really well far while then they'll stop. and so those who look at your swing say "proves my case. doesn't work. main maybe it works for a while." >> the placebo affect. i'veeard the one thrown out.
i've heard a lot of stories about why this swing works but one of the best is there's a pla placebo affect. >> rose: let's take mike weir. is he today using stack and it? >> i would say mike's using a large part of the principles that we thought him but they're not being enforced on him as rigorously as mike and i would enforce them. >> rose: the two of you would enforce. >> correct. >> rose: in other words, he's not foal logue as close as he should. >> not the way i think about it. >> rose: how about aaron batterly. >> he's gone completely back to >> rose: where he was. >> yes. >> rose: why did they do that. >> they want >> they want to get better and we have a track record where players do get better and i don't know if they lose sight of what they need to keep doing to get better because taking a player that's 300th in the world and going to 40th is one thing. going from 17th in the world to number one is a totally different amount of detail involved i mean...
>> different level of sophistication. >> definitely. >> rose: sergio garcia. >> beautiful. >> right. >> rose: stack and it? >> a large portion of it. >> rose: is it possible that you guys are on to a good idea but at the same time it's not either or, it's not 100% pure or you can never make it right. >> one player might need one little piece of something to take off and play great. and that's used against us, too, charlie, by the fact that this swing has a name to it. it's used in such a way as to make people think you have to do it all to use it and nothing could be further from the truth. it's interchangeable, little parts are interchangeable and this is really about making it to where you don't to integrate the whole thing. you just do one or two little things to make yourself better. then you need do one or two little more things to make it better. the first few lessons we give
these guys, they lea a few prince billions, their career takes off, then suddenly they reach a higher level of sophistication where they need more detail and at that point they're really not ready to hea the detail they need to do to go further. >> correct. >> rose: so they abandon the whole sning >> exactly. or sometimes. >> rose: here's another question that's been raised about this swing. they say that it's great for iron shots but... you've heard this. >> i've heard it all. >> rose: great for an iron shot but, boy... because an iron shot you're striking down and you want the club head and the divot of the club head to be in front the ball and your key to the success of a golf swing are essentially that club head has to hit the same spot repeatedly. >> right. >> rose: with a certain force in order to have a successful golf swing. >> correct. >> rose: people say it's great for an iron but a drive is different. it's sweeping the ball off, not
coming down on the ball. >> right. and our players only... they don't hit down on their driver... i mean, they barely hit down on it. >> so they sweep. you're saying "well, they got..." >> it's like one degree down. >> and this is the rub. you're hitting right at the core of it, charles lift in spite of the prevailing wisdom that people are supposed to hit up at their driver and sweep the ball to help it go up in the air, the statistics say that 50% of the players at the p.g.a. tour hit down at their driver in spite of the prevailing wisdom that you're supposed to hit up. okay? >> rose: so what's right? prevailing wisdom that you should be hitting up? >>? >> no, it's not right. you should be hitting downwards. >> rose: just a tiny little bit. less than the iron. >> right. so if you hit down five or six degrees on an iron, charles charlie, you would hit down one degree on a driver. >> why is he so convinced that this is "revolution"?
>> um... >> i'll let you answer. >> well, i think because it's... i don't think people realize how many people i think we've affected positively over the years. where we've got a small army of young friends of ours. they're teaching the and having success. our business is growing that way. >> why is this a revolution? >> well, because it's going to change the way people interpret the game. the very first thing in the book says "if all the golf lessons and all the golf books and all the golf vids for the last hundred years taught people to shift their left to the left instead of the-to-the right-- which is the opposite-- we would have generations of people drawing the ball, curving it to the left." >> rose: which is what you want to do. >> instead of slicing, aimlessly slicing. >> rose: out of the fairway. >> right.
and that's the very first seine innocence the book but it's even more than that. you'll agree that we make the point in the next photograph somewhere about how th basic fundamentals with how the game is interpreted are completely out of order. in other words... >> grip, stance, posture. >> all the basics you learn. >> is this a caused for you any more than just a business? >> it has become that. because i spent my life trying to become the best player i could. i didn't get in this to teach. but i feel compelled to because i... all i ever wanted to do is be able to hit a good shot. >> rose: if i'm golf professional on the tour i want to have the best possible swing and i'll do anything, i'll read anything, learn anything, try anything to build the greatest swing i can to have the best
game i can. so i would think that all of these guys who are on the tour would be knocking on your door saying "okay, smart boys, if you've got something to tell me, tell me what it is." >> we've had a greatty good share of tha >> they have been. >> we've never taught bernard lang her. i get a phone call on my cell phone a year ago and he we spent 20 minutes on the phone until we understood one another and he says "that makes sense, mike, thank you." >> rose: that says that a lot of people when you explain it to them they say "oh, yeah, i do that or i understand that but that's not what i call it." or "i didn't understand what you were talking about but now that you tell me what you're doing, i agree those principles." >> that's fair. >> rose: but not the principle that you shift your weight to the left which seems to be the basic thing that thanks them up because they look at pictures. >> i agree. i think the first thing that hangs them up, charlie, is
there's a name attached to it. and it's easily associated with being a fad. >> you could put one of our players next to somebody else that's winning a golf tournament and they look identical side by side but the commentary on our player will be negative, the commentary on the other player will be "oh, that swing is great." >> correct. >> rose: they don't recognize the difference on television. >> rose: back to the principles. what sells part of this swing that is a revolution? >> well, that's... i wanted to finish that because i didn't get to finish that a second ago. the part of this that might be even more revolutionary if you want to use the word-- that might be a bit strong-- but the part of this that's truly different past the whole weight thing is just the organization of how the game's played in that we recognize the best... what links the best players together as a different set of fundamental than what's commonly taught the average when they take their golf lessons.
and where that's far reaching is that the person may only be able to... may only take two lessons a year, time reasons, financial reasons or whatever. and if they spend thoseless lessons learning things that aren't... they spend that formula on things that aren't standardize they're wasting their time. but if the fundamentals are accurately presented they would improve faster and people would enjoy the game more. the barrier to entering it would be smaller. >> rose: one argument that is made for you guys is the motion that if you eliminate some of the areas for mistake then you are simplifying and enhancing the opportunity for consistency. >> we're trying to make the game easier for everyone, including the tour player. a lot of those tour players, you can't ask why they don't all call, a lot are scared to make any adjustments because they've seen a lot of their friends be
taught off the tour. they don't want to rock the boat. they just want to go out and not hate bad shot. if they do, they throw it out to chance and keep moving on. >> that's one of the things i have to say i respect about tiger woods is that guy has changed his swing three or four "new york times" the face of criticism. he realized he has a problem and he wanted to do something about it. >> rose: you know what hank teaches, i'm being simple here but he teaches playing a lot, does he snot >> he emphasizes playing. ... plain. >> rose: plain is not club head. plain is something else. >> i would say that's a fair assessment of the distinguishing characteristic of what he teaches. >> rose: now let's talk generally. who's got the best swing in sghofl >> by my stan sdmardz. >> rose: yeah, your standards. >> if you want to ask me, i would say tim clark is and example of a player who is not commonly referred to as someone
who has a good swing because it doesn't look what people think a good swing should look like but to my eye it has essential ingredients. >> i like sergio's swing a lot. >> i do, too. sergio garcia. there's another guy who's one of the best ball strikers, charlie, but his swing is never used as the moll dead to teach people buy. >> rose: i asked a well known person about whether he moved and they said if you look at him closely he does move. >> i would agree with that. >> rose: sergio's hips move a little bit going back. and the way he does that, though by moving his hips back, charlie he tilts his spine the opposite direction which is he tilts his spine more to the left than we prescribe. that's why we sere crazy about his swing. >> rose: some people say, as you know, this is a coming fad and the golf world has seen it and moved away. >> black magic, we'll be out of
golf in six months, that was a year and a half ago. one point i wanted to hit on was none of our players are hurting themselves, charlie. that was leveled at us in the beginning. >> rose: back injury. >> yeah, you'll hurt your back. guys sitting out tournaments because their backs hurt, our players haven't missed a tournament. >> i can't think of any amateur student v hurt themselves swinging like that. >> rose: that's one criticism but those people who insist the correct golf swing involves the shift of weight from if you're right handd from left to right, are they simply wrong? you're saying they don't get it. >> i would say you can shift your weight and hit a ball is what i would say. but i would say it makes the process much more chaotic. >> if you ask an applied physicist how it works, they explain our models of dual pund lum motion. chaotic model and least chaotic
model of hitting a golf ball. >> rose: it's not an easy thing to do to hit a golf ball. >> no. we're trying to make it easier, not harder. >> rose: all right, stack "the stack and tilt swing." who's peter maur sfles >> he's a friend of mine. he's the senior editor of "golf digest." >> rose: so here you are, three golf digest... one of the bibles of golf devote ago lot of time and here is the book and here are the guys. look at the video and read the book and make a decision for yourself. thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org